"In the old days I would have borrowed a friend’s copy, but there aren’t as many comic folks hanging around these days, you know?"--Too true. Used to be, the first time I'd read something new would actually be borrowing it from a friend. Now I'm reduced to one comics-reading friend. I keep him up to date on DC and he keeps me up to date on Marvel, although lately he's been switching over to DC a lot.

You know, T, instead of deciding that just because some biased line-by-liner thinks a book is bad, it must be bad, you could just download the book and see for yourself. It's not petty, it's just kind of stupid, and uninformed.

I thinking skimming the history of the Invaders in the Watchmen preview issue of AH I got off E-Bay nearly put me in a coma.

The guys at televisionwithoutpity.com are a good illustration of the exception. I read their plot synopses even for shows I've already watch (actually, come to think of it, almost exclusively for shows I've already watched) because they're funny and snarky in addition to giving "the facts."

But "straight" plot synopses of comics can be pretty deadly. I remember back in the day, the magazine "Amazing Heroes" had the occasional "Hero History" feature that, while nice as a reference in some ways, particularly in the pre-Internet days, could be horribly boring to read. "And then Daredevil faced Stilt-Man for the second time in #blah," followed by a blow-by-blow recap of that....

I'm getting scary flashbacks to the x-board 2-5 years ago (that long???) of everyone's fave male poster 'Jean Grey' and the other discussion that wouldn't die, not 'What is cool?', but 'Is reading a synopsis the same as reading the book?'.

A flash of white hot pain that,which hurts beyond belief, appears behind my eyes at the mere thought of those days.

Thanks for bringing that one back Brian, you bastard.

(I'm suprised Dan hasn't responded yet yelling about that one.
Maybe he's too busy rolling around on the floor, bashing his head into the ground over, and over again.)

Meanwhile, I hate spoilers in reviews or (in the case of one friend) in the NCRL listing. So what I want, apparently, is a site that's completely spoiler-free, except exactly where I want them.

Hmm. I wonder if "bipolarcomics.com" is taken?

Is that petty? Hell yeah it is.

Also, while summaries may be technically unneccessary, I sometimes find that the details someone chooses to include give me an idea of where they're headed with their commentary -- what they consider the salient points leading up to their argument.

That said, the practice is overdone. What would be useful is some site that only does synopses, like Spoilt!, but more comprehensive. Then the comics bloggers could link to a synopsis without having to break the flow of their own reviews and comments.

I don't know... I mean, on the one hand, those columns read more like a friendly chat with a friend about the movie you just both watched. On the other hand, you don't usually begin that type of conversation by recapping the entire plot, just so you both know. That's what you do for people who never saw the movie. So, are these columns intended to replace buying the comic? I have no idea.

[Raises hand] I'm one. I do try, though, in my reviews to go beyond the plot-synopsis level. I'm more interested in the implications of what's going on in the story and characterization than with the craft of it, but I am trying for actual insight.

But on the other hand, I want people who are joining the series late to be able to look at old reviews and get caught up on back issues they don't have, so I do have a 'What Happened That You Have To Know About' section. I just try to keep it brief enough that it's not pretending to be any substitute for reading the comic.

In any event, I think there are a lot of superhero comic book fans who have loyalty to a character rather than to a story or the craft that goes into telling it. The fact that people are only vaguely aware that there IS craft behind comics is one of the reasons why it's taken so long for Americans to accept comics as an art form worthy of study, worth more than the "Biff! Pow!" stereotype.

And going a bit further afield, I think this is something that happens to serial fiction in general -- most of the "companion" books to TV series are really just extended episode guides with some "behind the scenes" material, not serious criticism on the aesthetics behind a show. If fans of, say, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" talk about the craft in any way, it's usually about how sharp the writing is.

Well that and the people that are "boycotting" (how ridiculous is that) one title, but still wanting to follow it.

Two current examples are Outsiders and Wolverine. I don't buy either, but I still keep up with their overall plot developments. In the old days I would have borrowed a friend's copy, but there aren't as many comic folks hanging around these days, you know?

And I think that probably highlights why it irritates me so. Not that it occurs, but that it detracts from the folks who want to discuss the craft of the comic.

Perhaps, then, an interesting experiment would be to do TWO discussions for a particular comic book.

One where folks can just discuss what happened to their favorite characters and one where folks can discuss the craft of the comic.

That actually sounds like a really neat idea.

Thanks for the insight, Paul!

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. On the contrary, it's precisely the level on which a good comic OUGHT to engage an audience. Not everyone has to be an armchair academic.